gobucks39

The stimulus did not work, the President promised that the stimulus would hold the unemployment rate below 8%. The stimulus was based on Keynesian economic ideas that do not work. It is comparable to being hooked on heroin. When a person shoots up they get high and when the effect wears off the addict needs to shoot up again. In the case of the stimulus, when the money that was spent on producing jobs (and not a pork barrel project) ends the jobs produced by the stimuls ends. That is why the unemployment remains at 8.2%.

The President is not talking about tax cuts, he is talking about tax increases that are set to go into effect next year. His plan to let the Bush tax cuts end for thiose making over $250,000.00 is a simple wedge issue that has zero chance of making it through both Houses of Congress. Again, what has changed when in 2009 the President stated as a reason for extending the Bush era tax cuts on all tax payers that rasing any inome taxes during a recession was bad policy?

Didn't the President state it would be reckless to rasie taxes duirng a recession as one of his reasons for extending the Bush era tax credits, even on those making over $250,000.00? What has changed? Maybe on account of this being an election year and the President is seeking to use another wedge issue in his campaign in which he is unable to run on economic achievements.

Her actions show that she could care less about the so called 99%. She represented Travelers Insurance Company at the expense of asbestos victims. She took advantage of foreclosure sales to make a profit. She believes the rich should pay higher taxes, yet she chooses not to pay her State Income Taxes at the higher rate. She is a fraud.

The President had almost 2 years with a democratic controled House and a filibuster proof Senate to work on economic progress. However, he wasted political capital on his failed stimulus that was a giant pork barrel piece of legislation that threw money at union jobs and political kick backs that failed to hold the unemployment level under 8% as the President promised. He also wasted political capital on the health care legislation. The people of the United States were so impressed by the first two years that they elected a Republican House and ended the filibuster proof Senate. The Republican House has proposed budgets that tackle the run away red ink. The Senate under the "leadership" of Sen Reid refuses to propose a budget and simply votes down Republican legislation that emerges from the House. The President's proposed budgets are so bad that his last two budgets did not receive a single vote in the Senate.

"War on Women" Please, are you O.K with the fact that 9 democratic Congressmen in Massachusetts voted nay on a bill that would outlaw abortions based on gender? Are you O.K. with a TV host that gives big bucks to the President (who refuses to retrun it) and refers to a former Gov as the c... word and a dumb t....?

Sorry, but you are the one that does not know what you are talking about. After the first sentence, in your first paragraph of your post, you lifted word for word from an article in the Boston Globe (Joe Biden would be proud of you) However you failed to point out other points made in the Globe article. I will use quotes, which you did not use:

"In the words of one judge who tried to perserve the settlment, 'Travelers received something for nothing.'"

"It is clear that Warren received substantial amount of money to help the company (Travelers) to win immunity from all future lawsuits..."(asbestos related)

"Travelers was firthting to gain permanent immunity from asbestos-related lawsuits by establishing a 500 million dollar trust"

It is clear from the Globe article that Travelers was fighting to limit asbestos related lawsuits, not to preserve asbestos related claims, thereby saving itself money for its shareholders. Ms. Warren was paid $212,000.00 by Travelers to save money at the expense of asbestos victims.

The United Staters of America does not have a national language. In addition, children have a constitutional right to an equal education. In the case of a child that does not speak english and english only class would deprive them of their constitional rights to free public education.

She is not for the consumer, she is out for herself. When she had the chance she represented Travelers Insurance Company vs. asbestos victims.

She lied about her upbring, she lied about not being wealthy, she lied about her ethnic background, she lifted the cookbook recipes. She is also not the great consumer advocate that she attempts to pass herself off as. To sum it up she is a fraud.

This issue shows she is a fraud, along with her claim that she will protect the average consumer. Yet, when she had the chance she protected Travelers Insurance Compnay vs asbestos victims and in the process made $212,000.00. Also, she advocates higher taxes for the rich, however, she pays the lower Massachusetts tax rate.

Does the left really want ot make a big deal out of an incident that happended in high school. The President, himself stated that while in high school he shoved an overweight girl and that he had a history drug abuse.